Time For A Second

Opinion?

To the Editor:

On Wednesday evening, February 7, nearly 400 people gathered at the NMS to support a discussion and possible action by the Legislative Council to stop and shift the appropriation of the general obligation bonds from a new town hall to other town needs as outlined in the Fairfield Hills Master Plan.

Three members of the Legislative Council, Mr Borst, Mr Jacobs, and Ms Llodra, asked Mr Rosenthal pointed questions regarding the appropriation of the bonds and the authority to re-appropriate the bonds. Mr Borst, not satisfied with the response from Mr Rosenthal, asked two more times for clarification. Mr Rosenthal, in utter frustration, repeated his same answer to Mr Borst. The only legal opinion Mr Rosenthal held up to the Legislative Council is a letter he received on December 14, 2006, from Attorney Glenn Santoro regarding the Resolution Appropriating $21,850,000 for use at the FFH. It states that “it would be in violation of the Connecticut General Statutes and certainly place doubt in the minds of the bond rating agencies if the town were to seek to RESCIND the Resolution.” Rescind the Resolution? Rescind: to revoke, repeal; to invalidate. At no time did a member of the public or Legislative Council ask to rescind the resolution. Three opportunities to answer the question of re-appropriation. Do we have a legal “opinion” on re-appropriation of bonded money within the uses designated by the Master Plan for FFH? And should we be asking the first selectman questions regarding his own power and authority, or do we need a second opinion?

Gianine Crowell

26 Canterbury Lane, Sandy Hook                          February 14, 2007